Comments on: Political bloggers may get federal protection

A House of Representatives committee votes to immunize bloggers from complex and confusing election law requirements.

[scdecade]

Pathetic

Congress is pathetic. It's amazing they're not too ashamed to cash their paychecks. Last time I checked the Constitution was pretty clear about freedom of speech. Congress doesn't have and never will have the authority to grant 'protection' to bloggers. This right is guaranteed by the Constitution and is "endowed by our creator." Congress are a pathetic bunch of time wasters and money wasters. Just absolutely pathetic. Really, really, really pathetic. Pathetically pathetic.

[Blackspeak]

BREATHE FRANK...

but i feel ya doe...

[Earl Benser]

Generally useless comments....

...don't need any serious protection. Just ignore them. Nobody
cares what they say anyhow.

[casper2004]

Bloggers do need protection.

There are alot of blogs that edit your words. Especially ones owned by members of Congress. I haven't caught this place doing it though.

[Techno Guy]

The Root of the Problem...

...is the wretched Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. Think about this: Rep. Millender-McDonald says that she never intended her vote for the act to "squeeze out the voices of people expressing themselves on blogs on the Internet." By extension we can assume that she did mean to squeeze out _some_ voices expressing themselves _somewhere_.

And then we have the Center for Democracy and Technology which wants to tinker with what is and what is not regulated speech: a trio producing a $3000 video = good, an individual with a $5500 web site = bad. This is not only unconstitutional, it is moronic.

Instead, Congress should take a positive step by affirming its oath of office: to uphold and defend the Constitution by repealing the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act.

[nidsquid]

test

testing

[declan00]

root of the problem

It's a fair point. If BCRA had been altered not to include the Internet, we wouldn't be having this discussion today.

[casper2004]

Congress

should put all their personal money in a pile, count it by hand, and split it up with every American in the USA that don't have money to burn.

[mortis9]

my two cents

The general public is acquainted with politicians through the media. Congress recognizes that people are increasingly using the internet both as a source of information and as a forum for community discussion of issues. This can be useful, but they don't want it to be abused, and rightly so.

I think everyone is missing the point of this law, so let me give you an example. Currently the New York Times isn't allowed to print a political advertisement without disclosing that it is an adverstisement and not news reporting.

Why, you ask? Because people would believe all the FUD thrown at them because it's coming from a source they trust, yet anyone with enough money can purchase an adverstisement in the NY Times. These same laws hold true for television and other mediums.

The problem is the internet. More and more people get information from blogs, because they assume they are simply communicating with their peers. What if they weren't? What if they were really being tricked by political campaigners? This law is to make sure that doesn't happen.

This law doesn't limit legitimate political discussion, only FUD masked as something else. So long as political campaigners disclose that they are political campaigners, then everything is kosher.

I thin people forget that nearly every dime raised by politicians goes into their campaign funds in order to get them reelected. In today's world, candidates must sell themselves to the public, and TV commercials and newspaper ads cost a fortune.

Okay.. my two cents.